Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 13

Gordon Epperly
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
"Gordon Epperly" <enter69@usa-the-republic.com>
<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:52PM
Subject:
KTOO Article- Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Qualifications.pdf;
Motion_to_Quash_Remand_of_Case_to_Superior_Court.pdf
Mysterious "Memorandum" to "Court Order"
REMEMBER
q you forward this, please remove email
addresses before you send it 011, and use the
BCC area when sending to several people at once.
Be Killd to Your Email Friellds
- '-- ' ~ ' <
Hello Everyone
Page 1 of2
To my surprise, the Judge of the U.S. District Court issued a "Memorandum" with his
"Court Order" to dismiss my Proceeding that I had before the Alaska Superior Court.
I never received this "Memorandum" at the time I recieved the "Court Order," but
discovered it by accident from an Internet Article that was published by KTOO Radio
here in Juneau, Alaska. I won't bother going into discussion with the "Memorandum"
of the "Court Order" for everyone has received copies of all the Documents that have
been submitted into that U.S. District Court. I am sure each of you will be able to form
Conclusions of your own.
I just received another "Motion" from the Office of U.S. Attorney requesting the Judge
not to remand the Case back to the Alaska Superior Court. What is most bothersome
is that I never came into the U.S. District Court on my own initiative and I have never
accepted the pretended assertion of jurisdiction of that Court. But nevertheless, the
U.S. Attorney is now asking the Judge to "Sanction" me for submitting my own
understanding of the U.S. Constitution in my own defense. Most of you will remember
that back in the years of the late 1990's, I received a telephone call informing me that
the next time I made an appearance before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Alaska, I would be "Sanctioned" in excess of $10,000.00. It appears the
U.S. Attorney, Karen L. Loeffier, is going to make good of that threat for
questioning her authority to hold the Office of U.S. Attorney.
This proceeding that was moved from the Alaska Superior Court into the
U.S. District Court was for one purpose only, that was for a payback to Barack Obama
for appointing Karen L. Loeffier to the Office of U.S. Attorney. As you look to the
"Court Orders" of the Judge and the "Motion" of the U.S. Attorney, it is very evident
that the Judge and the U.S. Attorney had no intentions of addressing the qualifications
of Office of Barack Hussein Obama II, but have chosen to use their Office for the
purpose of obstructing the production of Documents of Office Qualifications that was
made upon Barack Obama Hussein II as a Candidate for the President of the
9/14/2012
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 13
Page 2 of2
United States. As one of the Attorneys representing Barack Obama stated before
another State's Administrative Hearing: "Mickey Mouse can be a Presidential
Candidate and hold the Office of President of the United States and there is nothing that
the People can do about it" so it is with this U.S. District Court.
I have attached a copy of the KTOO Radio Article with "Court Order To Dismiss Case"
and the "Motion" of the U.S. Attorney to quash my request to remand the Proceedings
back into the Alaska Superior Court. I am not going to respond to either of these two
Documents, for what is the point! There is less than thirty (30) days for the Director of
the Alaska Division of Elections to make a Ruling upon the Administrative Complaint
that is on file within her Office. The Judge's "Court Order" is purly "dicta" and it has
nothing to do with that Complaint.
Gordon Epperly
9/14/2012
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3 of 13
CRIME & COURTS
Lawsuit challenging Obama's qualifications is tossed out in federal court
by Matt Miller
September 12,20121:24 pm
An Alaska-based federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's qualifications to
appear as a candidate on the November general election ballot.
Gordon Warren Epperly of Juneau claims that Obama does not have the political right to hold federal office because
he's of mixed race. Epperly filed an objection with the state Division of Elections in April and sued in state Superior
Court in July.
Attorneys for President Obama, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Alaska Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell, and
Alaska Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai all filed motions calling for the lawsuit's dismissal.
The case was moved to U.S. District Court where Judge Timothy Burgess on August 24th dismissed the lawsuit 'with
prejudice.' That means it can never be brought up again.
In the five-page dismissal order, Judge Burgess says the lawsuit is based on 'frivolous and implausible claims' by
Epperly.
Burgess is a former Alaska-based U.S. Attorney who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush in
2005.
The below "Court Ordet' was never recieved by Gordon Warren Epperly from the Judge or
or from the Clerk of the Court.
The "Court Ordet' was discovered by accident upon reading the above Article of KTOO

uordon Warren Epperly
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 4 of 13
KAREN L. LOEFFLER
United States Attorney
E. BRYAN WTLSON
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
222 West Seventh Avenue, #9, Rm. 253
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567
Telephone: (907) 271-5071
Facsimile: (907) 271-2344
f3rvan. W i lsontcDusdoj .gov
Attorney for Respondent
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
GORDON WARREN EPPERLY,
Petitioner,
v.
BARACK HUSSETN OBAMA II, eta!..
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
~ Civil Action No. I: 12-cv-00 II (TMB)
)
)
)
)
____________________________ )
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND BY RESPONDENT BARACK OBAJVIA
Respondent, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JJ. in his capacity as the President of the
United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney, opposes Petitioner's
Motion to Remand, and in support states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Respondent removed this case from state couti on July 27, 2012. Doc. I.
Petitioner objected to the removal (Doc. 7), and Respondent tiled a response to that
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 21 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 5 of 13
objection, explaining why jurisdiction over this matter is properly in this Court. Doc.
9. Petitioner then filed the instant Motion to Remand, which rehashes the claims in
his earlier filings.
1
ARGUMENT
Petitioner Has Raised Official Capacity Claims Against President
Obama.
As explained previously, Petitioner has identified and challenged as unlawful
several of Respondent Obama' s official duties as President of the United States.
Petitioner tirst claims that Respondent's inauguration as President "was unlawful[]."
Doc. I, Attachment 1, p.3. To be sure, the inauguration of the President occurs at the
very beginning of his term as President. Nevertheless, as the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia explained in connection with President George
W. Bush's inauguration, judicial action, such as "an injunction or declaratory
judgment against the President" in connection with that President's inauguration,
operates on ''acts undertaken in [the President's] official capacity." Newdow v. Bush,
391 F.Supp.2d 95, I 06-07 (D.D.C. 2005) (emphasizing that the CoUI1 could not issue
an injunction that would affect the inauguration because of the Supreme Court's
command that such relief "should not be issued against the President for official
acts."). Other courts have likewise recognized that the inauguration of the President
is an official event. See, e.g., Allegheny County v. ACLU qfGreater Pittsburgh, 492
Petitioner also filed a "Rebuttal'' to Respondent's response to Petitioner's objection to removal. Doc. 13.
This tiling adds only the argument that Petitioner's challenge to President Obama's gualiflcations cannot be
removed because this Court would not have original jurisdiction over a quo warranto action, should Petitioner have
chosen to bring one. This argument fails because "unlike removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441, a district com1 has
jurisdiction to hear an action removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1442a even if the initial action could not have been
commenced by the plaintiff in a federal forum." Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 344 (9'h Cir. 1980).
2
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 21 Filed 08/21/12 Page 2 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 6 of 13
U.S. 573, 671 n.9 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in pat1)
(citing opening prayers at presidential inauguration as an example of symbolic
religious action by the Executive); Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Ed., 183 F.3d 538, 540
(6
1
h Cir. 1999) (Boggs, J.), (dissent from denial of rehearing en bane) (treating
solemnization of inauguration as official action). By challenging the inauguration as
unlawful, Petitioner thus frames his allegations squarely as an attack on the President
in his ofticial capacity.
The nature of Petitioner's challenge to the President's official business is
equally evident in his suggestion that Respondent be "investigat[ ed by] federal
officials such as the FBI" for an alleged "violation of[his] 'oath of office."' Doc. 1,
Attachment 1, p.5 at n.6. At1icle II of the Constitution provides the text of the
presidential oath:
1 do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office
of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
A claim that the President has violated this oath- taken at the very beginning of his
term of office- is by necessity a claim that the President has, by his official actions,
failed to "faithfully execute the Office of the President" or to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution.'' For Petitioner, there is no avoiding the reality that his
claims against the President based on the oath of office are claims against the
President for his official acts.
Finally, Petitioner's "prayer for relief" makes clear precise relief that he
seeks from the Court: "submi[ssion ofJ the name of Respondent ... for a grand jury
3
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 21 Filed 08/21/12 Page 3 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 7 of 13
investigation ... for [giving] 'Orders'' to Military Commanders ... and exercis[ing]
other duties of the President of the United States."
2
Doc. 1, Attachment 1, p.18. Such
a direct challenge to the President's exercise of his official duties is precisely the
type of situation for which ''the federal government [has] guarantee[ d] its agents
access to a federal forum" under 28 U.S.C. 1442. Durham v. Lockheed Martin, 445
F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (9
1
h Cir. 2006). Petitioner's request that the Court act against
Respondent for exercising core official duties of the Executive demonstrates the
outright misleading nature or Petitioner's attempt to recharacterize his pleading as
merely a request for review of the State of Alaska's administrative action.
Petitioner's suggestion that the Constitution requires discrimination on the basis of
gender is equally frivolous.
To his previous claims regardingjurisdiction, Petitioner's motion adds a "challenge [to]
the U.S. Constitutional authority of Karen L. Loeffler to exercise the Office of U.S. Attorney."
As his sole support for this claim- and his broader misconception that all "individuals who are
not white Citizens ... elected or appointed'' in the government are "usurpers of office,"
Petitioner presents only a rambling, irrelevant historical opus purporting to interpret the
Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. Petitioner has been previously sanctioned for making
similar arguments in other cases. See E p p e r ~ y v. United States, 980 F.2d 737 (Table) (9
1
h Cir.
1992).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Motion to Remand should be denied.
2
For obvious reasons, Petitioner may not avoid the implications of his requested relief by describing it as dependent
on the outcome of his litigation. See Doc. 16, p.3 ("a very important word that is overlooked ... is 'If."'). All forms
of relief arc dependent on the findings of the Court.
4
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TIVIB Document 21 Filed 08/21/12 Page 4 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 8 of 13
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, on August 21,2012, at Anchorage, Alaska.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 21.2012,
a copy of the foregoing
was served via U.S. mail on:
Gordon Warren Epperly
P.O. Box 34358
Juneau. AK 99811-4100
via electronic service on:
Thomas M. Daniel
Elizabeth M. Bakalar
s/E. Bryan Wilson
5
KAREN L. LOEFFLER
United States Attorney
s/ E. Bryan Wilson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for the Respondent
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 21 Filed 08/21/12 Page 5 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 9 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
GORDEN WARREN EPPERLY,
Petitioner,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:12-cv-00011-TMB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On June 25, 2012, Gordon Warren Epperly, representing himself, filed an
action in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, which was removed by the
defendants to this court on July 27, 2012.
1
Removal Jurisdiction
Mr. Epperly has challenged the right of the defendants to remove the case
to this court. He challenges (1) the jurisdiction of the court, contending that he is
complaining of the administrative actions which allowed President Obama's
name to appear on the ballot in Alaska, rather than posing a federal question;
and (2) that, as a woman, United States Attorney for the District of Alaska, Karen
Loeffler, has no authority to remove this case to federal court.
2
Mr. Epperly goes
on to state as follows:
1
Docket 1; Gordon Warren Epperly v. Barack Obama II, Case No. 1JU-12-694CI,
available at http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/eservices/home.page
2
Docket 13 at 2-3.
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 10 of 13
The year 2010 national elections for the government of the United States
have come and gone with several Woman [sic], and other individuals who
are not white Citizens, having been elected or appointed into the Offices of
the Congress, President, Judicial Courts, and several Executive Offices of
the government for the United States of America. All these individuals are
nusurpers of OfficeHfor they have no "Political Privileges" (Rights) under
any provision of the United States Constitution to hold a Pubic Office for
the United States government under the qualification Clauses of Article I,
Article II, and Article Ill of the United States Construction.
The question presented, since the [purported] adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, does a Woman or any none [sic]
white citizen have "Political Privileges" to be elected into or appointed into
Pubic Offices of the government for the United States of America?
3
In his initial pleading filed with the Superior Court for the State of Alaska,
Mr. Epperly states that he "brings this Petition for an 'Order in the Nature of
Mandamus' within the time frame and venue established by Article I, section 7 of
the Alaska Constitution, and by the Privileges and Immunity [sic] Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
4
He alleges that
President Obama was unlawfully inaugurated as President because, as "a child
of a mixed marriage [who] is identified in law as a 'Mulatto,"' he has "no inherent
'Rights of Birth' to be a 'Citizen' of the United States." As such, Mr. Epperly
contends, President Obama "was (unlawfully) inaugurated as President of the
United States."
5
3
/d. at 3-4.
4
/d. at 1-1 at 2 (emphasis added).
5
/d. at 2-3.
1 :12-cv-00011-TMB, Epperly v. Obama, eta/.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 5
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TI\IIB Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 11 of 13
Likewise, Mr. Epperly contends that "Respondent Nancy Pelosi is a
questionable member of the House of Representatives [because, a]s a women,
[sic] she has no inherent Rights of Birth to be a Citizen of the United States ....
There are no provisions in the Constitution of the United States that grants
Women 'Political Rights' of Suffrage to hold any Political Office of the United
States Government."
6
Given Mr. Epperly's statement of his own cause of action/ the defendants
had the right to remove the case to federal court.
8
6
/d. at 3.
7
Although Mr. Epperly also names state officials who have duties concerning federal
elections in Alaska, he claims that he was denied his "Constitutional Rights to 'Due
Process of Law' to allow [Respondent Gail Fenumiaj] to place the name of a
Presidential Candidate that has no qualifications of Office on the Election Ballots for the
State of Alaska .... and that his "Rights of 'Due Process of Law' ... have been placed in
jeopardy by Respondents, Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell and his Director of Elections,
Gail Fenumiai, for they have taken no action to 'verify' the qualifications of Office of
(perspective) Presidential Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama II." Docket 1-1 at 9- 10.
Mr. Epperly's cause of action under A.S. 15.25.042(a), likewise arise out of his
allegation that President Obama "has not established the eligibility requirements set
forth by the U.S. Constitution of being a 'natural born Citizen,' or even a citizen of the
United States," and "is therefore ineligible to appear on the Election Ballots for the State
of Alaska as a Candidate for President of the United States." /d. at 16-17. And Mr.
Epperly's prayer for relief states that his "Rights of 'Due Process of Law' ... require that
the Alaska Lt. Governor and his Director of Elections adhere to the U.S. Constitution
and verify the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II in a timely manner for the Office of
President of the United States." /d. at 17. Mr. Epperly further requests that the court
"submit the name of Respondent, Nancy Pelosi, to the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia for a Grand Jury investigation into the crime of 'advocating the
overthrow of the Constitutional form of government of the United States.' (5 U.S.C.
3331, 5 U.S.C. 3333, 18 U.S.C. 1918, and Executive Order 10450)." /d. at 17. In
addition, Mr. Epperly requests that "[i]f Barack Hussein Obama II is found to be in want
of the Constitutional qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States,"
that President Obama's name be submitted "to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia for a Grand Jury investigation ... into the crime of 'advocating the
1: 12-cv-00011-TMB, Epperly v. Obama, eta/.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 5
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 3 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 12 of 13
Frivolous Claims
"[A] complaint ... is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact."
9
"Factual frivolousness includes allegations that are clearly baseless,
fanciful, fantastic, or delusional."
10
Moreover, "a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. "'
11
In conducting a review of the pleadings of a self-represented plaintiff, the
court is mindful that it must liberally construe the pleadings and give the plaintiff
the benefit of the doubt.
12
Before the court may dismiss Mr. Epperly's case, the
court must provide him with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and
overthrow of the Constitutional form of government of the United States.' (5 U.S.C.
3331, 5 U.S.C. 3333, 18 U.S.C. 1918, and Executive Order 1 0450)." /d. at 18.
8
See 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) (allowing for removal for suits against federal officers); 28
U.S. C. 1441 (a) (allowing for removal when a federal district court has original
jurisdiction); Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-60 (2009) ("28 U.S.C. 1331 ...
vests in federal district courts jurisdiction over 'all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.' Under the longstanding well-pleaded
complaint rule ... a suit 'arises under' federal law 'only when the plaintiffs statement of
his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law]."'); see also Docket 9.
9
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774,
775 (9th Cir. 1996); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
10
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325
('"[F]rivolous,' when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.").
11
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
12
See Hebbe v. Plier, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 201 0) ("[O]ur 'obligation' remains
[after l q b a ~ 'where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe
the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt."') (citation
omitted).
1:12-cv-00011-TMB, Epperlyv. Obama, eta/.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 5
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 4 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 30-1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 13 of 13
an opportunity to amend, unless it is clear that amendment would be futile.
13
In
this case, amendment would be futile. Mr. Epperly's claims are implausible and
'frivolous.
14
This court will, therefore, dismiss this case.
15
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice;
16
2. All outstanding motions are DENIED as moot; and
3. The Clerk of Court will enter a Judgment in this case.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 24th day of August, 2012.
Is/ TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
United States District Judge
13
See Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir.
2002) ("Futility of amendment ... frequently means that 'it was not factually possible for
[plaintiff] to amend the complaint so as to satisfy the standing requirement."') (citations
excluded); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). See also Jackson v.
Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003) ("dismissal without leave to amend is improper
unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment." (citing
Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)).
14
See, e.g., Dockets 1-1, 7, 10-1, 10-2, 11, 13, 17.
15
See Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) ("sua sponte" is defined as "of one's own
accord; voluntarily."). Although the defendants make good arguments for dismissal
(Docket 7), the court requires no further briefing by any party on any issue presented in
this case. The issue of frivolousness and implausibility are so clear and conclusive that
it would be a waste of the parties' and the court's resources to allow this case to
proceed.
16
See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal, with
prejudice, upheld after "weigh[ing] the following factors: (1) the public's interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk
of prejudice to defendants/ respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives;
and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits").
1 :12-cv-00011-TMB, Epperly v. Obama, eta/.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 5
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 5 of 5
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m